Re Resham

CACV 579/2020

[2021] HKCA 1331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 579 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1332 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Chu JA and Mimmie Chan J in Court

Date of Judgment:  17 September 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 27 July 2021, this Court handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 1 September 2020 which refused to give him leave to apply for judicial review.   

2.On 20 August 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite directions had been given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, he has not put in a written submission to support his application.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.The notice of motion stated that there is some error of law in the decision of the applicant’s case, as the decision maker just relied on country of origin information (“COI”)  and facts that favour the rejection of the claim when the real situation is different from what is mentioned in the COI, and the immigration officer and the High Court had ignored the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities and adopted a biased, formulaic and unfair approach in assessing the claim.  It further requested the Court to provide the applicant with legal representation, and to consider his situation and save his life.  

7.We are of the view that the matters stated in the notice of motion do not provide viable grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Firstly, they do not engage with the circumstances of the applicant’s case and the reasons given by the Director of Immigration and the Judge (see [4] to [12] of our judgment).  The complaints about use of COI are misplaced as COI did not feature at all in the Director’s decision, which is the subject matter of the intended judicial review.  Secondly and importantly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for determination by the Court of Final Appeal, as required by section 22(1)(b).  Thirdly, for the reasons we gave at [16] to [19] of our judgment, there is no arguable ground to appeal the Judge’s decision and this Court’s decision. 

8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.